Military Tribunal, in the matter of: The
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Seidl.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, your Honors, if I have understood correctly, then Sir David has no objection to the calling of the witnesses, Dr. Hans Buehler, Dr. Bilfinger, and Miss Kraffzcyk.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: The second witness, Dr. von Burgsdorff, the last Governor of Cracow, is at present in the internment camp, Moosburg. That is close to Nurnberg, 100 kilometers from here.
Dr. von Burgsdorff is the only one of nine governors whom I have named to the Court as witnesses. With regard to the importance of the position of the governors in the General Government and considering the great difficulties whic these governors had to overcome, I believe that the witness Dr. von Burgsdorff should appear here before the Court personally to be examined, and it should no be done by an interrogatory. evidence that I expect from this witness?
THE PRESIDENT: We have got it in writing, and we understand that while Sir David suggests an affidavit you want to insist upon him coming personally.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, sir, especially with regard to the fact that the Court already before has approved the calling of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Reichsminister and Chief of the Reichs Chancellory, Dr. Lammers. This witness was already approved for the Defentant Keitel, so that there are no more discussions about that necessary.
The fourth witness is State Minister Dr. Meissner. With regard to the fact that this witness is mentioned for evidence for which also Dr. Lammers was named, should like to ask the Tribunal to permit in this case an interrogator except if this witness should be called for another defendant and would have to appear then personally.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I did check that point as far as I could from my records, and I could not find that he was being called for any other witness, for any other defendant. And as Dr. Seidl very fairly says in his first sentence, Dr. Meissner is named for the same evidence naterial as the witness Dr. Lammers. That is my point.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Dr. Max Meidinger, last Chief of the Chancellory of the General Government, and he is also, like Dr. von Burgsdorff, in Moosburg. You can see from my written motion that this witness had a very important position. He had worked for all correspondents, and he knows in particular the contents of the proposals and of the objections which the Defendant Dr. Frank has directed against the central authorities in Berlin.
He is also informed about the proposals which the Defendant Dr. Frank has repeatedly made to the Fuehrer in person. that with regard to the large knowledge of this witness -- he was for several years active in the General Government -- that a personal hearing before this Court would be advisable.
THE PRESIDENT: You say he was approved. Was he not approved as one out of a group of which Frank was to choose three? There was a large group of witnesses.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, sir. From this group he was selected, von Burgsdorff and Dr. Max Miedinger. Those are the two witnesses whom I have selected from a group of 13 witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Which was the other one?
DR. SEIDL: The other one was the witness number two, Dr. von Burgsdorff. personally, is the wtiness Hans Gassner. He was last press chief in the General Government, and he is also in the internment camp of Moosburg. He is called, among other things, for the evidence that the Defendant Dr. Frank, as late as 1944, received information about the existence and the conditions in the camp at Majdanek; and through information from this witness about publications in the foreign press.
when Dr. Frank made the statement to a press reporter that the forests of Poland would not be sufficiently large to publish the death warrants. The witness will also be able to explain in detail how this interview was kept, how the Defendant Dr. Frank made this statement, and how he wanted it to be understood and what the reasons were for him to make that statement. earlier date. list of evidence will show quite generally the direction in which I would want to list witnesses, and that I have definitely disregarded to formulate the questions in detail which I intend to put to the wtinesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, will you express your view about Number 6?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If your Lordship pleases, it seemed to the Prosecution that the second matter which Herr Gassner was desired to speak as to, that the Defendant Frank only learned from him in 1944 about Majdanek, is really a matter about which no witness can be as satisfactory as the defendant himself. All the witness can say is that "I told the Defendant Frank about Majdanek, and it appeared to me that he didn't know anything about it." Well, that is not, in the view of the Prosecution, satisfactory evidence has been cross examined on that point. If it is desired that that interview should be before the Court, the Prosecution submits that it could be adequately dealt with by an affidavit or an interrogatory. Apart from that, the grounds are entirely general and again could be covered by a written statement.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, the next one Sir David has already expressed his views on.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, sir.
If I have understood correctly, there are no objections from the side of the Prosecution.
Witness Number 8 is General von Epp, last governor of Bavaria. He is at present in the internment camp at Oberrursel. What this witness is supposed to prove concerns particularly the position of the Defendant, Dr. Frank, the attitude of the Defendant Frank to the question of concentration camps in the year 1933.
I should consider it satisfactory if the Court would permit the use of an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Sir David.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship will see that General Ritter von Epp seems to cover the same, incident as Dr. Stepp. I said that I wouldn't object to Dr. Stepp, but if Dr. Seidl wishes an interrogatory on some specific points from General Ritter von Epp, I shouldn't make any objections.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness, Witness Number 9, is Dr. Rudolf Bilfinger, last Oberregierungsrat and SS Obersturmbannfuehrer in the RSHA. He is at present in Nurnberg, and the Prosecution apparently has no objection against the calling of this witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: (Interposing) My Lord, I would just like to say one word about Dr. Bilfinger. I want the Tribunal to understand what the Prosecution has in mind. The general plan of those witnesses is to show from both ends the relationship between the Defendant Frank and the central agencies. The Prosecution thought that it was right that the Defendant should be allowed to call two or three members of his own staff and a member from Headquarters, who was in the position of Dr. Bilfinger, to give the other side of the picture. I just wanted the Tribunal to understand the plan on which we were working.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: Number 10 is Dr. Walter Stepp, last oberlandergerieth's president in Munich, at present in the Interment Camp at Ludwigsburg. If I have understood Sir David correctly, then he has no objection against the calling of this witness. I have already received, and which will prove the veracity of these points. The reading of this affidavit would only take a few minutes, and if the Court would permit me to call another witness in exchange or the Prosecution would have no objection to my calling another witness -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have to ask for some notice as to who the other witness is. I was stating that I had no objection to Dr. Stepp because he speaks as to the Defendant Frank's position in relation with other people in Bavaria in earlier years. Of course I can't speak on behalf of my colleagues and accept just another witness blindly until I know who the witness is and what he is going to say.
DR. SEIDL: The witness Dr. Max Meidinger would be the one.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to be as reasonable as possible. The reason that I had objected to Dr. Meidinger was because, as the Tribunal will see under Number 7, it is stated that Frauelein Kraffzcyk is called for positive facts for which the witness Dr. Meidinger has already been named. It seemed to me that the private secretary is probably the most useful witness, but I am afraid that I can't help Dr. Seidl any further. I have put my view, but I shall not say anything further against him. I am afraid that is as far as I can go on that point.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness is number 11, the witness von dem BachZelewski, SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Waffen SS, who has already before this Tribunal been examined as a witness of the Prosecution. I have already received approval at an earlier date for an interrogatory with that witness. In the meantime I have spoken to the witness, and the witness has made an affidavit, which I would be prepared to submit instead of calling him personally.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought that it was most convenient if the witness von dem Bach-Zelewski came back and then Dr. Seidl could put any affidavit to him if he wanted. We might want to re-examine on the point. I don't knew what is in the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Was he cross examined by Dr. Seidl?
DR. SEIDL: When the witness was heard here I had no opportunity to cross examine the witness, and for that reason -
THE PRESIDENT: Why did you have no opportunity to cross examine him?
DR. SEIDL: Because I did not know before that he would be called by the Prosecution as witness, and because I had no opportunity to speak to the Defendant Frank about the questions which I could possibly have asked the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will consider whether the witness ought to be recalled for cross examination or whether you will be allowed to call him yourself. The affidavit which you say he has made, has that been submitted to the Prosecution?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I haven't seen it, my Lord.
DR. SEIDL: No, sir. My opinion at this point is the following.
THE PRESIDENT: When you saw Von Dem Bach-Zelewski did you see him with a representative of the Prosecution?
DR. SEIDL: No, sir. It was approved, apparently by the General Secretary that I could speak to the witness, and that was at a time after the Court had already approved the use of an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: But when the witness was called by the Prosecution and you had the opportunity of cross examination, if you weren't ready to cross examine you ought to have asked to cross examine him at a later date. I mean if you weren't able to cross examine at that time because you hadn't had any communication with the Defendant Frank on the subject, you ought to have asked to cross examine at a later date.
DR. SEIDL: This application to the Court I could only have made, in my opinion, if I could have countered with the possibility to put questions to this witness. I didn't know at that time that the witness could know something with regard to Frank which would be important, and that I found out later.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider the matter.
DR SEIDL: May I add something to this point? The difficulty of the cross examination for the defense counsel consists of just this, in that we do not know in advance when the prosecution intends to call a witness. We only found out when the witnesses were brought into the courtroom, and only then we knew about the subject when the prosecution started to examine the witness. It would have been much easier for us to cross examine, to conduct the cross examination if we would have known in advance about the witness and the evidence concerned; that is, so far in advance as the prosecution knows it now about the witnesses of the defense.
The next witness is witness No. 12, von Palezieux. He was the last art expert in the General Government and concerning this witness, I should like to suggest that here also the use of an interrogatory would be approved.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL*FYFE: If Dr. Seidl asks for an interrogatory I have no objection. I just want to be clear that that is a written interrogatory. I don't want Dr. Seidl to be under a misapprehension.
THE PRESIDENT: You meant a written interrogatory, didn't you, Dr. Seidl?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, sir. I believe that in those cases where a written interrogatory is admitted or that an affidavit is admitted by the Court, the purpose is to avoid that witnesses be brought here and only in order to gain time.
The next witness is witness No. 13, Dr. Boepple. He was the last Secretary of State in the General Government and is now in the internment camp at Ludwigsburg, near Stuttgart. This witness seems to be one of the most important and for that reason, that he was in the General Government and there he has answered a few questions concerning the Government, in which the accusation against the Defendant Frank plays an important part. I may refer in detail to my list of evidence and I want to add, first of all, that this witness may give us detailed information as to whether, during the five years of existence of the General Government, industrial equipment of that area was exploited ot taken away, or if it was rather so, that in 1943 and 1944, as a result of transfers from the Reich, the General Government had much more industry that at the beginnine.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL*FYFE: The prosecution submits that, as is stated in the first sentence, "***Dr. Boepple is called for a number of facts of evidence, for which Dr. Buehler has been already generally mentioned," part of the evidence stated is the relationship which the General Government agencies and the remainder as to the happenings in the General Government, can be dealt with by the witnesses already agreed to by the prosecution.
DR. SEIDL: It is correct that some of what Dr. Boepple is concerned with can also be told by Buehler but, in my opinion, it cannot be doubted that the subject of evidence, for which I have named this witness, is so important that one witness might not be sufficient to inform the Court.
I would like to point out the following point of view. The witness Buehler was chief of the government in the General Government. He was repeatedly interrogated, also by the Polish Delegation, and there is some danger that also against this witness, on account of the importance of his position which he has held there would be a trial started against him. It is evident that under these circumstances, each defense counsel has to take into account that possibly this witness will try to defend himself in answering certain questions, and with regard to the importance of the facts, it seems that on account of the difficulty of this case, this situation, the Defendant Frank should be granted further witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, in your suggestion, did you include any of the other witnesses who were cumulative to Buehler?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I suggested an affidavit from Boepple and only Fraulein Kraffzcyk on the generalwork of the General Government. The others, I think, are on the different points of the relationship with the central agencies.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness is witness No. 14, President Struve, who was chief of the Main Labor Department in theGeneral Government; that is to say, he was the labor minister in the General Government. With regard to the fact that is has been said by the prosecution of the United States against the Defendant Dr. Frank and also by the Soviet Union, especially about the deportation of workers, heavy accusations have been made against Dr. Frank. With regard to that, it seems to me that for this part of theevidence, at least one witness -- and that is the official -- should be heard in order to give information as to which were the directives which he received from the General Governor concerning these points.
We have found out the location where this witness is right now. He is in a camp near Paderborn.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should suggest, my Lord, with great deference, that if Dr. Seidl would run through the other witnesses and show those to which he attaches special importance, it would be convenient for the Tribunal and if Dr. Seidl would be good enough to say wuite bluntly whether he attaches importance to any of the others; if he does, then it might be possible for the prosecution to reconsider the elimination of all these witnesses but the position at the moment is that there are requests for all sections, all departments of the Government General and the prosecution failed to see how those are necessary, as if Dr. Seidl would indicate any special purpose that he attaches to any of them, then one might come back and consider President Sturve again; but the position at the moment is that the prosecution do not see how it really helps the case of the Defendant Frank, that each one of the departmental chiefs should be called.
DR. SEIDL: It is not so that all officers or chiefs of these departments will be called as witnesses. There would be quite a number of others which I could have named and I have already mentioned that, for instance, of nine generally, of which every one was in charge of three and a half million people, I have mentioned only one; that is, the witness von Burgsdorff. that is the various military commanders. If, however, the prosecution should like to know which witnesses I consider of special importance, I will name the numbers of these witnesses. It is, besides Dr. Buehler, witness No. 2. von Burgdorff. Lammers was already approved.
The witness Dr. Max Meidinger.
The witness Gassner, No. 6.
The witness No. 7, Helene Kraffzcyk.
The witness No. 9, Bilfinger. He was not a member of the Government General.
The members of the Government. No. 13, No. 14, No. 15, and No. 19. That should not mean, however, that voluntarily I would forage all the witnesses which I have not mentioned. Witness No. 15, President Dr. Naumann, is an important witness because he was the chief of the Main Department for Nutrition and Agriculture and could give us detailed information about which the policy of the Defendant Frank was with regard to the nutrition of the Polish and Ukrainian people and how he has tried in particular, with the highest authorities of the Reich, to achieve a reduction of the demands of the Reich. Until now, the address of this witness was not known but as I have found out, his present location is supposedly known to Prosecutor Dr. Sawicki of the Polish Prosecution.
The next witness is witness No. 16, President Ohlenbusch, who is especially called for the culture policy of the Defendant Frank in the Government General, who should give us some information on this point. There is a witness which does not count among the most important ones and I should think, there here an affidavit would be sufficient.
Witness No. 17. The same thing applies to Witness No. 17.
Witness No. 18 is Dr. Eisfeldt of the Main Department Forestry, and who could make statements about the forestry policy of the defendant, and that seems to me to be a point -- information about the fact that the trouble with the resistance became so strong that it was not in the interest of the Polish and Ukrainian people and that strong measures had to be taken.
Witness No. 19 is President Lesacker, last president of the Main Department Internal Administration, and also in this case, we have found out only recently where he is.
Witness No. 20 is Professor Dr. Teitge, who, as can be seem from my list could give information about the attempts of the Defendant Dr. Frank concerning the health policies.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I now had the advantage of hearing everything that Dr. Seidl had to say and it seems to me that so far as the witnesses from the Government General itself are concerned, the position is that Dr. Boepple, No. 13, doesn't add greatly to the general position which would be explained by Dr. Buehler and Dr. Burgsdorff and Fraulein Kraffzcyk; that the witness No. 5, Dr. Meidinger, seems to deal with very much the same problems as President Struve, witness No. 14, and the witness Naumann, No. 15, and that on reconsideration, I think the prosecution would be prepared to agree that one of these witnesses, either Dr. Meidinger, or Dr. Struve, or Dr. Naumann, might well be called.
With regard to all the others, Dr. Ohlenbusch, and Dr. Senkawskz, and Dr. Eisfeldt, seen to speak about points that are really removed from the issues in this case, and Dr. Lesacker speaks on the general attitude of the defendant towards Poles and Ukrainians, which is covered by Dr. Buehler and von Burgsdorff, and Meidinger, if he is granted; and the last witness, Teitge, seems again to speak as to a really departmental point which is not a serious issue in the case and, therefore, in trying to apply our own principle of recommending any witness where there is a real relevancy, the prosecution would be prepared to go as far as I said in their recommendation, that in addition to the witnesses that I have mentioned, they would suggest that either Dr. Meidinger or one of the witnesses, Struve or Naumann, should be called.
COLONEL POKROWSKY: May I have permission to make a few additional statements, to add something to which my respected colleague, Sir David, has said?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
COLONEL POKROWSKY: After I had heard Dr. Seidl, I came to the conclusion that we shall ask you to consider our negative attitude to the question about the repeated calling of the witness von dem Bach-Zelewski. The Soviet Delegation is afraid that if the Tribunal finds it possible to grant the application which, according to me, is absolutely unfounded and without any basis, then a very dangerous precedent would be created for actually denying or rejecting the decision in principle which has already been accepted and already made by the Tribunal in regard to this respect. As I said, the Tribunal is of the opinion that every witness can be and should be called only once and with certain exceptions.
In response to your questions, Dr. Seidl confirms that when cross examination was taking place here in this hall by my colleague, Colonel Taylor and me, Dr. Seidl was present here. He saw and he heard how cross examination was being done. His reference to the fact that he didn't have time enough to prepare himself to participate in this cross examination, seems to me that this reference is not worth paying any attention to. He was in the same position as the rest of us were. The Tribunal will remember that a whole series of defense counsel participated in cross examination, seems to me that this reference is not worth paying any attention to. He was in the same position as the rest of us were. The Tribunal will remember that a whole series of defense counsel participated in cross examination of the witness von dem Bach-Zelewski and I see no basis or foundation why, for the sake of Dr. Seidl, there should be created some different attitude and I don't see any reason or foundation, and it is purely incomprehensivle to me, on the part of Dr. Seidl, that there should, be any change made in regard to the decision and principles of the Tribunal, which deals with the fact that the witness is called only once. That is what I wanted to add to the words of my respected colleague, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I do not believe that the application to call an important witness, that the demand to hear him again is so incomprehensible if the cross examination is difficult, for reasons which we cannot influence. In the first place, I have not made that application to call the witness here but I have only asked the Court for permission to obtain an affidavit from that witness and to submit this to the Tribunal. If, now, the affidavit is such -
THE PRESIDENT: Are you dealing with No. 20?
DR. SEIDL: No, sir. I speak about the witness von dem Bach-Zelewski.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider what you said about it.
DR. SEIDL: May I now begin with the list of documents, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the documents, Dr. Seidl asks for the correspondence between the Governor General and the Reichschancellory. I have just verified that we have not got the other part of the correspondence. Of course, if any come into our possession, we will be only too pleased to give them to Dr. Seidl. We haven't got them and we haven't also got the personal files of the Defendant Frank, in the Reich Security Office. The same applies to that, that if we do get possession we will let Dr. Seidl know at once.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the prosecution any objection to the other documents which are asked for?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think that is all. The others are the diary. Dr. Seidl can comment on and call evidence as he desires as to the diary.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Now counsel for the defendant Frick.
DR. OTTO PANNENBECKER: I am Dr. Pannenbecker, counsel for the defendant Frick. The first witness I have to call in is Dr. Lammers. He is also called for the defendant Keitel, so I do not have to say anything further about him. in the Department of the Interior, Dr. Stuckert, one of the State Secretaries in the Department of the Interior, and he is in custody in Nurnberg. He was also chief of the Zentralstelle.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Dr. Stuckart being asked for by the defendant Keitel?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think the explanation is that it was certainly thought that on the 9th February this witness was to be so called by the defendant Keitel, and on that basis he was approved in connection with the defendant Frick. That is not directly my request to write it on the defendant Keitel's final list.
THE PRESIDENT: You have no objection to him?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to him, Your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Mr. President, No.3, I have mentioned Daluege, who was formerly a General of the Police Force, and who is now in custody in Nurnberg. He is informed especially about the position and the attitude of defendant Frick in regard to the anti-Jewish demonstration 9th November 1938, and he also has information about the relations between Frick and Himmler.
Witness No.4, I have mentioned Dr. Diehls, who is now in the internment camp at Hanover. The witness became in 1933 -- in 1934 Chief of the Gestapo of Prussia. He is informed about the measures which the defendant Frick, as Minister of the Interior, has taken about the various countries; decreed restrictive rules about the concentration camps, and also he is informed about the special measures concerning the conditions of these camps.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I submit that this witness' evidence should be taken in writing. With regard to the early part, the Tribunal will have the advantages of the defendant Goering who was concerned with especially that of the practices of the police in Prussia in 1933 and 1934, and with regard to the other points, as to the measures of the defendant Frick, and of course, these are either by laws or orders, or administrative measures, which could be included in the submission by the prosecution as being dealt with by written testimony, supplemented by testimony of the defendant Frick himself.
DR. PANNENBECKER: If I may say something. I believe that it would be more practical to hear the witness here before the Court, because then by previous conference with the witness it could be satisfied about the point he is informed, whereas in interrogatories that could not be well discussed in detail.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Then I may go to No.5, the former Police Commissioner, Gillhuber. Gillhuber had accompanied Frick in all of his travels as his bodyguard, and he also knows which travels Frick had made, and therefore is in a position to say that Frick never made a trip to the Concentration Camp Dachau, which is contrary to the statement made here by the witness Blaha.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection, of course, to the defendant Frick dealing with that point. The only difficulty as to a witness of this sort is, I will say, unfamiliarity with all of his travels, because if he is or was a bodyguard, he is almost certain to have periods of leave, and periods of interruption which would occur. I should have thought that this could have been dealt with by affidavits, or an interrogation, if necessary. When they are seen the matter could be reconsidered. But I would suggest at first stage the interrogations, indicating in the witness own account how often he was with the defendant Frick, and what interruptions would be the most frequent in that period; therefore, it is for the Court.
DR. PANNENBECKER: I agree with that, Mr. President.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now dealing with the next point, I have a suggestion to make in regard to the witness -- the next witness Denson.
The point, as I understand it there, is that the witness Blaha said before the Tribunal that Frick had visited Dachau; that it was, in his evidence on the Dachau trial, he never made a trip to Dachau. I should say the most satisfactory way in dealing with that is to get the shorthand notes of the witness Blaha's evidence at the Blaha Trial, and put in a certified copy.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Agreed. I believe also that this notation -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Actually we have a certified copy of the shorthand notes of Blaha's evidence here, and I also say in fairness to the witness that it does show he did say that at Dachau Frick visited the concentration camp, and I'll show it to Dr. Pannenbecker whenever he likes.
DR. PANNENBECKER: No. 7, I have mentioned Dr. Messersmith, but an affidavit has been read here by the prosecution already, and his interrogation was approved, and we have not as yet received an answer. I would ask anyway to see whether a further affidavit would be necessary. Dr. Gisevius.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should submit that Dr. Gisevius' evidence might also be reasonably dealt with directly in an affidavit in answer to interrogatories.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is this in the exhibit?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Visevius, in the supplement.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He was consultant of the Reichsminister of the Interior, and that the defendant Frick did first refer to Switzerland after 20 July 1944; that he has the exact knowledge of the responsibility and actual authority of the defendant Frick to issue orders in police matters. I should think that such matters might be answered, or conveniently dealt with in an affidavit.
MR. PRESIDENT: What do you say, Dr. Pannenbecker?
DR. PANNENBECKER: I would like to say that Dr. Visevius is also called, or is needed by the defendant Schacht as his witness, as much as I know, about the incident of 20th of July.
I believe that this witness should be here for the defendant Schacht also. It would be better also if the witness could appear personally for the defendant Frick. Of course, if this cannot be done, an affidavit would have to be sufficient.
THE PRESIDENT: You asked earlier for the return of Ratke. I think that you were told you could have Stuckart for him. Will you now leave out of your application to have him because you have Stuckart.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Now it was like this with regard to the incident of Blaha. I had named three witnesses, Ratke, Dr. Stuckart, and we dropped Ratka when I got Gillhuber.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Now characterizing the personality of the defendant Frick, the defendant Frick, I think, requested to be permitted to fetch two books; one small one of the Reich in which a speech by Frick is contained therein. I only intend to quote short excerpts from these books in my brief. Concerning the other book "Inside Europe" by John Gunther, I also only want to quote a short excerpt. question that Frick was opposed against the arbitrary measure in connection with the protective custody in connection with the internment in concentration camps, and that he has issued decrees against them. I refer to a document which the prosecution has originally submitted but not read in court. These documents I have listed under No. 2A and 82C in detail. the Ministry of the Interior, where were also decrees, and the incident of the defendant Frick can be found. which I have received by the former Deputy Dr. Wulle. I have mentioned it under No. 3.
The prosecution has submitted an affidavit by Dr. Seger, in whichhe declared that Frick as in December 1932 as Chairman of the Foreign Committee of the Reichstag, in the first committee that he had made statements about the political opponents, putting the political opponents into concentration camps.
In No. 4 I have asked for the records of the prosecution of the Foreign Office, the notes of which show that such a statement has not been made, and has not been recorded.